University Enrichment Committee Minutes
DATE: October 26, 2009
TIME: 3:30-4:30 p.m.
PLACE: TRIMBLE HALL
In attendance:
Peter Greenfield
Brendan Lanctot
Jennifer Utrata
Renee Houston
Leslie Saucedo
Jim Evans
Tamiko Nimura
Cathy Hale
Sarah Moore
Jim Jasinski
Heidi Orloff
Chair Renee Houston opened the meeting by asking for feedback regarding
two recent changes made by the UEC involving 1) faculty travel and 2) IRB
approval. For faculty travel, new requirements include a travel waiver form
for research or conference participation outside of the United States and a
special travel waiver form for research or conference participation to
countries with a travel warning. For faculty research applications with IRB
involvement, research exempt from IRB review needs to provide a
statement of exempt approval status from the departmental IRB designate,
and research requiring expedited or full board review should include a copy
of all completed and approved IRB materials.
Sarah Moore summarized some of the feedback she has received thus far.
For some faculty, doing the IRB work so far in advance is very difficult.
George Tomlin found it hard due the dates of various deadlines in O.T. But
Sarah thought we can still make this work since some of these conflicting
deadlines were only a problem this year and the deadlines won’t cross in
future years. Heidi wondered if materials could be submitted to UEC and IRB
concurrently. Sarah did not think that we could make awards contingent on
approval because of the difficulty associated with tracking these processes.
There was a general discussion about flexibility and a concern that some
might think we’re sending the wrong message on faculty research.
Although the IRB requirements are tricky for sabbaticals, in particular, Sarah
noted, we could put language in that says “if this is a hardship, let the UEC
know” or “we’re willing to talk.” The issue is that the university cannot
1
support faculty research requiring IRB approval if, in fact, the approval is
never obtained. This puts the university at risk. Once the sabbatical is
granted, it becomes too difficult, in practice, to ensure that faculty comply
with IRB application guidelines. On the other hand, sabbaticals are granted
between 12 and 18 months before the leave occurs. IRB approval expires at
the end of a year after which time an extension must be sought. This strikes
the committee as unfortunate bureaucracy for the faculty member.
Moreover, faculty often do not have the time to launch all preparatory
methodological steps so far in advance of when they might actually engage
in the work. Heidi wondered if exceptions might be made then for
sabbaticals only. But after more discussion it was decided that for now Cathy
and Renee would draft a sentence saying something along the lines of “if
these requirements present a hardship for faculty, then let us know.”
In terms of travel changes, the main feedback Sarah heard had to do with
faculty upset that students can never go to countries with a travel warning,
in the specific instance of when they are going to help faculty with research
in a particular country with a travel warning. The reasoning is that often
faculty feel like they know the safety of a country better than others and
should be allowed to use their judgment in terms of a student accompanying
them or not. Jim E. asked if this was a hypothetical, but Sarah said no.
Cathy reflected on the power differential between professors and students
and how policies should be sensitive to this, and Heidi commented on the
underlying responsibility Puget Sound has to students when we allow them
to travel to countries with travel warnings.
Sarah explained that this is a real case, and faculty are concerned because
travel warnings are often given to low-risk countries just for political
reasons. The faculty member who had concern with the current policy
argued that he or she will be evaluated in terms of doing research with
students and now cannot bring students along, complicating research plans.
Can exceptions be made? A general discussion began, although all admitted
that it would be hard for anyone to make such decisions in this room without
the appropriate, deep country knowledge. Jim E. talked about attorneys and
the legal implications and Sarah said the faculty members taking issue with
the policy had stated that they had found examples of other university
policies that appear to provide good alternatives. Brendan thought Cuba was
a great example of a place where students would want to go, and where the
travel warnings are obviously very political in nature. Sarah wasn’t sure how
other universities deal with the issue, but Tamiko expressed concerns about
breaking precedent here, and Jennifer wondered about the other ways to
involve students in research here or to utilize local researchers or students in
a particular country. Cathy noted that studying abroad in a country should
be the first step for doing research there, but students cannot study abroad
2
now in countries with a travel warning! We have to consider the larger
policies at Puget Sound. Heidi discussed legal obligations and the fact that
the U.S. Peace Corps has escape plans for each volunteer whereas Puget
Sound does not have the resources for this.
Sarah noted that Lisa Ferrari is working on addressing this issue with
concerned faculty members with vested interests and thinking about
whether it is possible to make an exception or not. Jim E. said that the legal
aspects seem worth looking into, though Sarah thought that this was being
addressed as well by Ferrari.
Next Renee reviewed the faculty senate charges. We now have one spring
deadline for all student research, which appears to be no problem since
there were few fall applications for the first spring deadline anyway.
A discussion ensued about the laptop loan program previously administered
by the UEC. There is no money to replace the 3 UEC old laptops and
although they are not borrowed often, some reflected on the fact that some
faculty do need them occasionally. Renee asked about students needing
them, but Sarah clarified that only faculty who had been granted research
grants were supposed to use them.
Most people argued that it would be nice if the UEC got out of this business
since notebooks are available elsewhere. Jim J. mentioned that department
chairs should request laptops in their equipment requests, especially since
laptops become obsolete so fast.
Renee mentioned the 3rd charge of revising professional development
awards, but instead a heated discussion ensued regarding the next order of
business, the category caps for the UEC travel awards. The max for faculty
conference travel is $1350 and the issue of a lump sum payment came up.
Sarah clarified that the issue is that our mean reimbursement amount is
around $1100; presently UEC does not have the means to afford a change in
caps that would cause the mean reimbursement to increase. Cathy said that
the departmental discretionary travel funds are helpful in filling gaps but
many others discussed the fact that conferences are in different cities, per
diem amounts are very small, and some conferences have very high fees.
Jennifer also mentioned that there is little incentive for faculty to choose
lower-cost airfare when full airfare is reimbursed whereas faculty saving on
airfare end up paying out of pocket in terms of conference fees and per diem
costs. Heidi objected to caps coming down, while Jim J. and others talked
about how unrealistic the allocation is right now. Sarah expressed the idea
that there is a systematic “bias”; with the way category caps are set
presently, those with greater airfare, lower conference fees and lower
lodging expenses are reimbursed at a greater rate than those with low
3
airfare but high conference and hotel costs. Thus, although the overall cap of
$1350 would perhaps not change and the mean reimbursement rate would
need to stay at around $1100 with the current number of faculty who apply
each year, UEC might consider revising category caps so that trips with
certain types of conference expenses were not systematically reimbursed at
a higher or lower rate. Heidi described faculty in some places who are selffunded for conference travel.
Clearly the mean cost of a trip is up, and although there are generally no
second trips, Sarah said 2nd trip applications can be put aside until May 15.
35% of funds have been already allocated this year, but $4,000 rolled into
this year from last once all reimbursements were finally paid out in July,
2009. Heidi wondered how many applications have per diem and conference
registration fees that are at the maximum, suggesting that this would be
interesting data. Sarah said that the issue is complicated and we need to
devote some time to it this year. After more discussion it was decided that
the UEC would look at this issue sometime this year.
Renee brought everyone back to the last two charges. Student research
applications will come in on Nov. 10th and the UEC should read them with an
eye toward seeing if the revisions to the student application instructions
yield clear and complete proposals. The faculty research deadline is Dec. 1st.
Sarah reminded everyone about the Regester Lecture by Suzanne Holland
on Thursday, Nov. 19th at 7:30pm.
Heidi, Cathy, and others asked for a bit more notice before an email was
sent with the next meeting time. It was decided that our next meeting will
be held on a Friday at 3:30pm, just for this semester since schedules will
change for next semester. The next meeting will be called by the Chair.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Utrata, Secretary for the Oct. 26th Meeting
4